Awesome 2025-06-02 12:43 a.m.MINUTE ORDER: The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint and Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. First, preliminary injunctive relief, as here, is never granted as of right, for “[it] is an extraordinary and drastic remedy.” Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam) (citation omitted). Second, the Court applies the same standard to a temporary restraining order as that for a preliminary injunction. rochonto3 v. Singhski, No. CV-0102-25, Op. and Order Denying Mot. to Vacate, at 2, (Mayfl. Dist. Ct. Feb. 12 2025) (citing Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2001); Ingram v. Galt, 50 F.3d 898, 900 (11th Cir. 1995)). The factors the Court considers in any such request are, thus: (1) the likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant in the absence of relief, (3) the balance between this harm and any injury the non-moving party would suffer if relief were granted (the so-called “balance of equities”), and (4) where the public interest lies. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 23 (2008). And where, as here, the government is the opposing party, the last two factors merge. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009).